This text is part of:
ἦν: the imperfect here is idiomatic. ἐστί would obviously be admissible.
ἀτάρ, or αὐτάρ (Homer), a strong adversative: comparatively rare in prose, outside Hdt. (Xenoph., Plato). In 4. 188, 5. 66, as here, it answers to a preceding μέν. αἰσχρῶς with ἀρρωδη_σαι, and ὅτι after φρόνημα. The further construction is not quite regular: τοσοῦτος would naturally be accompanied by οὕτω (ἀρετῇ ὑπερφέρουσα) and followed by ὥστε, with infinitive. The place of the final sentence is taken by the relative (τά） and conditional (ἄν). The neuter relative is also observable, the antecedents being χρυσός and χώρη. κάλλος and ἀρετή of the land refer to its appearance and its inherent virtues; cp. 7. 5 supra. In Plato Charm. 157 E the same collocation of words referring to an οἰκία (family) is based upon the beauty and valour of the members. It would have been interesting to have had κάλλος here more fully defined.
ὑπερφέρουσα, ‘surpassing’; cp. c. 138 supra. μέγα, adverbial (‘far’).
μηδίσαντες καταδουλῶσαι τὴν Ἑλλάδα: there is only too much point in the participle; the Athenian ἀρχή was originally based upon opposition to Persia, but opposition to Peisia did not preclude καταδουλῶσαι τὴν Ἑλλάδα— rather it furnished the means and excuse therefor. This passage reads so narvely that it looks early; not like an apology on the part of the τυραννὸς πόλις of the age of Perikles, but rather like a bid for the hegemony of a free Hellas. According to Plutarch (Aristeid. 10) it was Aristeides who dictated this answer; the ascription is at least ben trovato. Themistokles would hardly have ‘given away’ the actual situation so completely. He is, indeed, conspicuous by his absence on this occasion. He would hardly have dismissed the Spartans with an official inventory of τὰ διακωλύοντα and a simple request στρατιὴν ὡς τάχιστα ἐκπέμψαι. Plutarch (l.c.) also records a further act of Aristeides calculated to make Sparta's assurance doubly sure: ἔτι δὲ ἀρὰς θέσθαι τοὺς ἱερεῖς ἔγραψεν, εἴ τις ὲπικηρυκεύσαιτο Μήδοις ἢ τὴν συμμα- χίαν ἀπολίποι τῶν Ἑλλήνων. That act might be held to regularize the ‘lynching of Lykidas,’ cp. 9. 5.
πρῶτα μέν: the first place is assigned to the κώλυμα θεῶν (cp. Thuc. 5. 30. 1), arising from the sacrilegious destruction of holy places and objects The constant recurrence to this <*> sideration assures us that this grie<*>ce bulked very largely in Athenian <*>ories and may have deeply affected <*>eir feelings at the time, cp. c. 143 supra; it also supports a relatively early date for the speech: after the glories of Periklean Athens had more than restored the works destroyed by the Mede, the sharp edge of these feelings was abated. But the further inference that the Persian war was in any special sense a religious war, or that the Persians were inflamed by puritanical and iconoclastic zeal against the idolatry of Hellas, is an exaggeration; cp. c. 109 supra. τὰ ἀγάλματα καὶ τὰ οἰκήματα. cp. τούς τε οἴκους καὶ τὰ ἀγάλματα c. 143. It is a question whether the Persian incendiaries or the Athenian restorers wrought the more havoc on the old Akropolis and its contents: the ancient wooden image of Athena, still to be seen in the days of Pausanias (1. 26. 6), had been transported to Salamis (Plutarch Themist. 10) and so preserved. Cp. Frazer ii. 340 f.; Hitzig-Bluemner, note ad l.c. It is tolerably certain that the actual destruction by the Persiaus was exaggerated afterwards: in any case, at the ostensible date of this speech, their work of destruction was not yet fully accomplished; cp. 9. 13 infra. Blakesley remarks that after the battle of Plataia it became the popular view at Athens that the war had been waged against the Persians in revenge for the destruction of Hellenic temples: it is a far cry from the field of Plataia to the (fictitious) oath, which according to Lykurgos (c. Leocr. 82) was taken by the collective allies just before the battle of Plataia; cp. 7. 132 supra. But that the Athenian legend was well under way in the generation after the hattle is proved by this very passage. (Cp. Plutarch Perikl. 17, and note to c. 109 supra.）
τοῖσι ἡμέας ἀναγκαίως ἔχει τιμωρέειν ἐς τὰ μέγιστα. This formula goes beyond the case of merely defensive warfare, and anticipates, or reproduces, the πρόσχημα of the Delian alliance (Th. 1. 96.). τοῖσι is masc. The Athenian view differs from the Delphian, cp. c. 36 supra (both no doubt ex post facto), as also from the ‘vengeance is mine’ of the Hebrew God (cp. Romans 12. 19 and reff.). But then Delphi had not been destroyed by the Persians.
αὖτις δέ: the second κώλυμα is ‘political,’ in the highest sense; it is the unity and solidarity of Hellenic culture, and what is perhaps implied rather than stated, its superiority to barbarism, the obligation to defend and to preserve it, the iniquity of betraying it: ‘the cause of civilization itself is at stake.’ The passage is, indeed, the locus classicus on ‘the unity of Hellas,’ and Curtius' great chapter under that title, Gr. Gesch. i.6 (1887) pp. 458-551, Die griechische Einheit, a brilliant commentary thereon. τὸ Ἑλληνικόν: sc. ἔθνος, γένος, or simply a collective neuter = οἱ Ἕλληνες, in their potential union. Undoubtedly in the historic period, and for a good while before the fifth century, over the Greek peninsula, and around the Aegean coasts, to say nothing of Greater Greece and the outlying colonial regions, there was spread a dominant population, more or less homogeneous and national in character, and with a distinctive type of civilization of its own. Divided under various ethnic or tribal names (chiefly Aiolian, Dorian, Ionian, Achaian, cp. Hdt. 1. 56-58, 142-151); divided geographically into distinct territorial units (Thessaliaus, Boiotians, Athenians, Peloponnesians, Italiotes, Sikeliotes, etc. etc.); divided politically into separate and independent city-states innumerable; yet all claiming and recognizing each other as belonging to one communion, one organic system, one people—Greeks, as we say; Hellenes, as they preferred to name themselves. Non-Hellenic elements were not unknown, or unrecognized, within the Hellenic area. There were sects, or strata, on the borders or even in the midst of Hellas, whose character was doubtful or even non-Hellenic, e.g. Aitolians, Epirotes, Makedonians, Pelasgoi, Leleges, Kaukones, etc. There were perhaps foreign intruders (Phoenician, etc.). There were more certainly survivals from a pre-Hellenic population. But these elements were in the main overcome, absorbed, assimilated, expelled, or reduced to insignificance, albeit their presence must be reckoned with, partly as enriching, partly as disturbing, the ideal homogeneity of the Hellenic type. The Hellenic name apparently originated in Thessaly (Homer, Il. 2. 683, 9. 395), and spread with the Achaians (or, less probably, the Dorians) over the whole aggregate (cp. J. B. Bury, ‘History of the names Hellas, Hellenes,’ J.H.S. xv. (1895) pp. 217 ff.). The Greek name, in itself every bit as ancient and authentic, originated in Italy as a collective name, having been brought thither by the Chalkidic colonies (cp. Busolt 1.2 198; Ed. Meyer, G.d.A. ii. (1893) 302), or more probably—as giving an earlier date —from Epeiros and that neighbourhood (Helbig in Hermes xi. (1876) 257); cp. Aristot. Meteor. 1. 353 A αὕτη δ̓ (sc. ἡ Ἑλλὰς ἡ ἀρχαία) ἐστὶν ἡ περὶ Δωδώνην καὶ τὸν Ἀχελῷον: ... ὤκουν γἀρ οἱ Σελλοὶ ἐνταῦθα καὶ οἱ καλούμενοι τότε μὲν Γραικοὶ νῦν δ᾽ Ἕλληνες.
ὅμαιμον, ‘of one blood.’ The expression here, this ‘note’ or ‘test’ of Hellenism, assumes the national pedigree, which traced the four main divisions of the Hellenic aggregate to the three sons of Hellen, Aiolos, Doros and Xuthos (through his sons Ion and Achaios). This pedigree cannot be much older than Hesiod, in whom it first meets us (Frag. 25 = Rzach 7: an entirely different ethnology rules in the Homeric poems), but its existence is implied in Herodotus (1. 56, 7. 94, 8. 44) and Thucydides (1. 3), and is fully given (from the logographs, etc.) in Strabo 383, 397, Apollodoros <*>. 7. 3. In point of fact this <*> or test of Hellenism is but an e<*>ation, in ethnological terms, of the historic fact of nationality, and is not itself a datum to start from, but a theorem to be proved. For it plainly means, not that in course of time by intermarriage there was brought about such a fusion in the aggregate that all Hellenes might be regarded as related to one another (in any case a highly disputable theorem): but it means that there really was a strict descent and genealogy in the Hellenic stock, ab initio. The pedigree in any case took little or no account of women: the theory belongs to a strictly ‘patriarchal’ stage or type of culture. A dominant raee, a dominant strain, and that ultimately of ‘Aryan’ or ‘IndoEuropean’ origin, in the Hellenic aggregate, is proved by the remaining tests, and by the further one, the physical type, of which Hdt. takes here no specific account; but a veritable fusion and confusion of races and stocks probably underlies the Hellenic nationality. ὁμόγλωσσον, ‘of one tongue.’ Language, including literature, is undoubtedly a strong mark of racial identity, especially in the earlier stages of a nation's evolution. The prevalence of the Greek language (and its purity) is perhaps the most remarkable fact, and coefficient, in the Hellenic communion. But language is in itself by no means a certain test of nationality, or of race, nor are those who speak one and the same language to be regarded as descendants of one and the same stock (the eases of Latin, of English, of Greek itself are evidential). But the predominance of a language in a given area proves ccrtain conclusions, applicable to the case of the prevalence of Greek in the Hellenic area. (i.) The presence and prevalence (numerical, or political, or both) of the people whose language it is. Moreover, the relative purity of the Greek language points to the early and effective occupation of the given area by Hellenic tribes or folks. (ii.) Philology proves that the people whose native language was Greek belonged to the Indo-European (or Eurasian) stock, an observation which makes it certain that the Greeks themselves were immigrants into the region which became the theatre of Hellenic history. There is some evidence, however, of the persistence of non-Hellenic tongues within the Hellenic area, e.g. Hdt. 1. 57, and the non-Hellenic inscriptions (in Greek characters) found in Lemnos and in Krete. Perhaps also the varieties of Greek dialect may have been encouraged by the presence of pre-Hellenic elements in the population. The linguistic frontier is tolerably well defined round Greece proper: in the East, Karian is a foreign language, c. 135 supra, and the same is true of the Asianic languages generally. In the West the Epeirote and Illyrian are non-Hellenic (in the historic period), Thuc. 2. 68, 80, 81. In the North the position of Makedonian is rather doubtful, but though akin to Greek, it differs by more than merely dialectal variation, while Thrakian is distinctly ‘barbarous.’ In the South the Kretans of historic times speak Greek, but the non-Hellenic tongue survives in the east of the island (cp. 7. 171 supra). θεῶν ἱδρύματά τε κοινὰ καὶ θυσίαι, ‘common foundations, common sacrifices to gods’—that is, a common religion: common cults, a common theology. The great national centres of religion, with their cults, oracles, and festivals—Olympia, Delphi, Dodona (perhaps Delos), Eleusis—must be chiefly in the speaker's (or writer's) mind: the theology is not expressly mentioned, but may be assumed; cp. 2. 53. Perhaps nothing would more clearly show the genetic or non-primitive character of the Hellenic national communion than the history of Hellenic religion. The Hellenic and pan-Hellenic significance of Olympia and of Delphi (to take the most conspicuous examples) was comparatively recent. The panHellenic Agon of Delphi has the year 585 B.C. as its epoch, and it was established by Kleisthenes of Sikyon and Solon of Athens (cp. J. B. Bury, The Nemean Odes of Pindar, 1890, Appendix D). The Olympian Agon was dated conventionally two centuries earlier (776 B.C.), but this is a ‘prochronism’; the founder of the Agon was Pheidon of Argos, and the date of the foundation was probably 668 B.C. (Ol. 28; cp. Hdt. IV.-VI. i. 383, note to 6. 127). Delphi gave up to mankind what was intended for Hellenes; but the Hellenic character of the Olympian Agon is attested by two striking facts: (a) the title of the stewards, Ἑλλανοδίκαι, which must be associated with the establishment by Pheidon (the same title was used at Nemea). The adoption of this title presupposes the extensive recognition of ‘Hellenes,’ and ‘Hellas.’ (b) The inclusion of all Hellenes (2. 160) and the exclusion of ‘barbarians’ (5. 22) in the competition, which give it a truly ‘national’ character. But the common theology (θεοὶ κοινοί 9. 90 infra, θεοὶ οἱ Ἑλλήνιοι 5. 49) carries back further than the great festivals. There is apparent in Greece, even in the historic period, a wondrous variety of local cults and of local myths; but there is also apparent a large community of belief and worship: of this community the Homero-Hesiodic ‘theology’ (including the Hymns) may be taken as typical. This theology is, indeed, comparatively late (cp. Hdt. 2. 53), but its middle and latest ages imply a long past, a long process, a genesis; and the systematization, the general reception of the Homeric Pantheon, imply a large common stock of ideas and of practices, original or acquired, which in turn implies a long history, a long occnpation of the area, over which this religious complex is recognizable.
ἤθεά τε ὁμότροπα, ‘a uniform moral and political culture.’ Under this head might be comprised: (i.) the citystate, with its republican constitutions of one kind or another; (ii.) the family and domestic institutions, marriage, paternal descent, etc.; (iii.) the usages in peace and war, προξενία, κήρυκες, etc.; (iv.) the ethical ideals in the fullest sense. But no one knew better than the Athenian Thucydides that this culture was itself a gradual growth, and not a primitive or intrinsic possession of the Hellenes; that primitive ‘Hellas’ was itself barbarous (τὸ παλαιὸν Ἑλληνικὸν ὁμοιότροπα τῷ νῦν βαρβαρικῷ διαιτώμενον 1. 6. 6). It is not the business of the speaker in this passage to qualify or to correct the extreme and enthusiastic assertion of ‘the unity of Hellas’; but it is worth while for us to observe that under each of the four great tests, or factors, of Hellenism here propounded, history has significant exceptions and contrary instances to notice. Blood, Dialect, Religion, Ethos, were dividing lines in Hellas, though space here precludes further illustration.
ἔστ᾽ ἂν καὶ εἶς ... Ξέρξῃ: this dotting of i's and crossing of t's (if it took place) was very unwise from a diplomatic point of view; to give such assurances to Alexander (c. 143 supra） was bad enough; to pledge themselves thus to Sparta was almost suicidal. It looks downright foolish in the light of the sequel: not alone the γνώμη of Lykidas (9. 5), who was one Athenian, but the formal declaration of Athenian representatives in Sparta, ὅτι σύμμαχοι βασιλέος γινόμεθα (9. 11). Hdt. appears quite unconscious of the satire he thus levels against Athens. The two narratives are from independent sources, and more suo he gives them both, without adjustment, for what they are worth.
ὑμέων μέντοι. Hitherto they have been speaking of themselves. The position of the words is emphatic. ἀγάμεθα appears to be used in a good sense, as in 4. 46, rather than in an ironical sense, as in 4. 157. Stein5 detects, indeed, a politely satirical (hoflich honisch) tone in this speech, and finds in that tone, and in the large scale on which the whole story of the negotiations is narrated, evidence for two conclusions: (i.) that it was committed to writing at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war (i.e. 431 B.C.), and (ii.) that Hdt. takes sides with Athens against her ungrateful foes. As to the first point: (a) it assumes (as is too often assumed) that Sparta and Athens quarrelled for the first time in 431 B.C. As a matter of fact the direct feeling between Sparta and Athens was probably not so bitter in 431 B.C. as it had been in 446 B.C. or in 461 B.C.; (b) it ignores the bearing of the Makedonian question. The war in 431 B.C. was largely brought about by Perdikkas, who seems to have had a genuine and legitimate grievance against Perikles and Athens (cp. Thuc. 1. 57). It would be a strange way of taking sides with Athens at the outbreak of the war in 431 B.C. to make so much of the εὔνοια, εὐεργεσίαι, προξενία, φιλία of Alexander of Makedon. Possibly Hdt. sympathizes with Athens rather than with Sparta in this passage, but if so, it is an ideal sympathy, projected into the situation of 479 B.C., not an obscure and partisan commentary upon the outbreak of hostilities in 431 B.C. The Atticizing tone of the whole passage may be due to the Attic or phil-Athenian sources, from which Hdt. has drawn it. So far as Atticism illuminates the problem of composition, the passage is most easily intelligible as belonging to the earlier, perhaps to the earliest, draft of these Books. The slight suspicion of persiflage is, perhaps, misleading, for it ill accords with the heroics of the immediate context. The Spartan offer bore, indeed, rather too near a resemblance to inviting a colossal pledge, or hostage, from the Athenians; but an Athenian migration to Sparta had not been suggested; probably only Peloponnesos was intended, and for that move there was a precedent (cp. cc. 41 and 36 supra).
προνοίην ... ὅτι προείδετε, ‘providence,’ provision, provide; cp. προνοίη in a different sense, c. 87 supra. The verb in this sense is more generally in the middle (L. & S. sub v. προεῖδον).
τοὺς οἰκέτας: cp. c. 142 supra.
ἡ χάρις ἐκπεπλήρωται, ‘your kindness leaves nothing to be desired’ —is full to overflowing—is far more than we had any right to expect. χάρις is here better taken as the ‘gracious act’ (an offer) on the part of Sparta than as ‘the feeling of gratitude’ on the part of Athens. The perf. pass. is not so much temporal as qualitative in significance. ἡμεῖς μέντοι: contr. ὑμέων μέντοι just above.
λιπαρήσομεν, ‘we shall continue to hold out’; cp. 9. 45 (μένοντες), 5. 19 (τῇ πόσει). οὕτω ὅκως ἂν ἔχωμεν, ‘as best we may’; cp. c. 143 supra. λυπέοντες, ‘causing annoyance to.’
στρατιὴν ὡς τάχιστα ἐκπέμπετε: the conference at Athens is quite at the end of the winter. Mardonios is. however, represented as still in Thessaly 9. 1. If the story just told. the speeches reported, be true, or anywhere near the truth, the Athenians had themselves to thank for the Spartan delay in responding to this demand; they bave given away their diplomatic weapons in a fit of pan-Hellenic generosity.
οὐκ ἑκὰς χρόνου, ‘before long.’ ἑκάς is generally a local adverb; it is, however, used absolutely of time, Pindar Pyth. 2. 98 (54), Aischyl. Agam. 1650. For the use of the adv. with the generic genitive Stein compares Aischyl. Suppl. 597 εἰσόπιν χρόνου.
προσεδέετο: like the simple verb, constructed with the double genitive, pers et rei, τῶν ... ἡμέων, cp. cc. 3. 8, 26. 2 supra. (Stronger than taking τῶν as genitive by attraction = τούτων ἅ, 6. 35 notwithstanding; cp. 5. 40 σευ τἢς ἐξέσιος, 3. 157 ἐπιτράπεσθαι ἕτοιμοι ἦσαν τῶν ἐδέετο σφέων.)
ἡμέας, ‘you and us,’ us both. So Schweighaeuser.
ἐς τὴν Βοιωτίην: this rendezvous could not be thus treated as a matter of course, except as the result of preliminary deliberations and a definite plan of campaign, perhaps the original one; cp. c. 40 supra. οἳ μέν κτλ The corresponding sentence opens the ninth Book: there is no grammatical break. Cp. the transition between Bks. 7 and 8.
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.